Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the vote “a victory for fear- mongering and obstruction over a bipartisan commitment to fix our broken immigration system.”

Yeah, Kerry would say that. It all comes down to fear-mongering. That’s it. And should we feel comfortable when something as controversial as amnesty becomes greatly bi-partisan? Of course not. When a few senators secretly scheme behind closed doors in order to concoct something as dangerous and damaging as was this immigration reform bill, then personally attack those who are against it while rigorously rushing to move it through the legislative process as quickly as possible, shoving it down our throats, we should suspect that perhaps something else could be cooking behind the scenes.

Regardless, thanks to millions of Americans who actually care for the sovereignty of their country by committed pestering of their elected officials, this bill will not go through, and Bush’s arrogant statement, “I’ll see you at the signing ceremony” will not come to pass. His legacy is dead. Thank God.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.

A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.

The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.

It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill’s provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

Voting to allow the bill to proceed by ending debate were 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and independent Joe Lieberman, Conn. Voting to block the bill by not limiting debate were 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders, Vt. Tim Johnson, D-S.C., did not vote.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.

“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.

But conservatives from Bush’s own party led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.

“Americans feel that they are losing their country … to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said.

But the bill’s backers said border security and accommodations to illegal immigrants must go hand in hand.

“Year after year, we’ve had the broken borders,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “Year after year, we’ve seen the exploitation of workers.”

After the vote, he said: “It is now clear that we are not going to complete our work on immigration reform. That is enormously disappointing for Congress and for the country.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, “in the next few years to fix the existing system … . We are so close.”

From the beginning, the bill’s most forceful opponents were southern Republicans. GOP Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Jeff Sessions of Alabama led the charge, often backed by Texan John Cornyn.

Two southern Republicans—Lindsey Graham, S.C., and Mel Martinez, Fla., who was born in Cuba—supported it.

Also crucial to the bill’s demise was opposition from three Democrats recently elected from GOP-leaning states. They were Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the vote “a victory for fear- mongering and obstruction over a bipartisan commitment to fix our broken immigration system.”

I will say this at the beginning: During the May 1st illegal alien rally held in McArthur Park two weeks ago, the Los Angeles Police Department personnel stationed in that area responded far too excessively to a situation that required a determined and disciplined counter to a few thugs who used the rally for their own anarchistic ends.

Instead, the LAPD blew it. They blew it for themselves as an organization that seems eternally steeped in community recovery efforts, and to a lesser degree, they blew it for people such as myself who remain staunch advocates opposed to illegal immigration. Everyone understands and most reasonably agree the LAPD far exceeded their use of force (but not their authority) during the McArthur Park rally. Chief Bill Bratton was the first to come forward and accept responsibility for the unnecessarily brutal actions taken by those under his command (Mayor Villaraigosa was nowhere to be found–he was dubiously conducting international diplomacy in Latin America.) Bratton condemned those actions and he immediately punished officers who took the lead in the debacle. Additionally, the chief has borne witness to countless community members (I won’t say citizens since most are probably illegals) during public meetings as he and the LAPD in general were vilified and disparaged by a myriad of angry Los Angeles residents–people whose ire, without deviation was directed squarely upon Bratton and the police department. Again, understandably so and the police chief admitted as much.

Yet those who came out in denunciation against the rock and bottle-throwing hoodlums responsible for triggering the entire mess in the first place were few and far between, if there were any at all. The police response was disproportionate, antagonistic, and irresponsible. The thugs who initiated the whole mess were and are despicable. Yet even our Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has said little to excoriate the few dirt bags who turned a relatively peaceful day into something that is now dramatically referred to as “The May Day Melee.” Instead, he has joined the mass of legal citizens and illegal aliens who simply wish to impugn the entirety of the LAPD.

Going that extra mile, as he is always want to do in situation where he’s guaranteed a high degree of media attention, Villaraigosa has decided to turn his back on the Los Angeles Police Department by attending a highly publicized rally taking place this evening in McArthur Park. The rally is being headed by Nativo Lopez, left-wing illegal alien proponent, open borders advocate, and amnesty champion for 12 to 20 million criminals living in the United States in direct violation of our laws. And Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, along with illegal-aliens-should-have-a-drivers-license-too Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, will be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Lopez at this obviously anti-LAPD rah-rah.

While I’m most likely repeating myself, Villaraigosa has chosen not to represent me as a legal resident of the United States and citizen of Los Angeles. Nor does he represent any of the other millions of legal Angelinos unfortunate enough to live under his reign. Villaraigosa is squarely in league with illegal aliens and Mexican nationals who break our laws, who run down our education system, who destroy our state health care institutions, who import and sell drugs, and who murderlegal citizens. Villaraigosa has declared his deplorable intentions against me and everyone else of legal status in this city–he cares not for our concerns. Yet if you’re an illegal alien, he’ll be there for you. He may even let you register to vote.

Of course, this only further brings to light the breaking news of the day concerning the immigration reform/amnesty bill agreement between several “key senators.” Any bill or law that focuses on amnesty first and border enforcement second, as does this one, will ultimately fail with disastrous results. How many times does it need to be said? Secure the border first, then look at dealing with the millions of illegals already in this country.

One important factor many of the apparently clueless political progenitors in charge of the country seem to overlook is the simple fact of repetition from absolution acutely evidenced after the illegal alien amnesty granted back in 1986. After that amnesty the U.S. saw one of the largest floods of illegals pour into this country–more illegals hoping for another amnesty–simply because they did not take border enforcement seriously prior to passing that legislation. And it will happen again if anything resembling an amnesty passes. Not only do we receive multitudes more before a proposed amnesty, without a secure border we simply repeat the process ad infinitum until this country is buried under the weight of its imported and impoverished masses. The third world latino dystopias that fester in most of our large cities will boil over with disillusionment, anger, and eventual rebellion pointed at those considered the elite–the middle-class. Don’t think it will happen? Look at the suburban Paris riots of 2005. It’s nearly the same scenario. Little to no attempt at assimilation by these groups only expands the chasm between their culture and ours, worsening the situation even further.

Perhaps this will all one day be moot anyway. With the recent discovery that ethically questionable groups such as the National Council of La Raza and MALDEF are being allowed virtual veto power over any immigration bill that does not meet with their standards and their demands (see below), one can discern where this road we’re traveling is likely guiding us.

Maybe affirmative action laws aren’t so bad. As an Anglo living in the United States of the future, I may need them.

Police Chief Also Plans To Attend; Deputy Chief To Retire

POSTED: 6:38 am PDT May 17, 2007

UPDATED: 11:59 am PDT May 17, 2007

LOS ANGELES — Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez are among those expected to join immigrant-rights activists Thursday for a march and rally to denounce the actions of Los Angeles riot police at a May Day rally at MacArthur Park.

The event will begin with a town hall-style meeting at Immanuel Presbyterian Church, followed by a 10-block procession to MacArthur Park, where organizers will hold a candlelight vigil and a series of performances.

“The LAPD denied our community both a political and physical space to nonviolently claim our rights to legalization for all undocumented immigrants and a fair immigration reform for the country,” said the event’s organizer, Mexican American Political Association President Nativo Lopez. “Political leaders and organizations throughout the country stand solidly with us.”

Due to street closures for the event, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will reroute 14 bus lines operating on and around Wilshire Boulevard between 4 and 10 p.m.

The affected bus lines are 18, 20, 21, 26, 51, 52, 200, 201, 204, 209, 352, 603, 720 and 754, according to Metro officials. Signs will be posted at affected bus stops to inform riders when and where the buses will be detoured.

Demonstrators, journalists and police officers were injured at the end of an immigration march in MacArthur Park May 1, when police tried to disperse some people who moved off the sidewalk into Alvarado Street.

Some demonstrators responded by throwing plastic bottles and rocks at officers, according to police. Officers clad in riot gear used batons and fired 146 rounds of foam-rubber bullets to disperse the crowd.

A preliminary version of the LAPD’s after-action report will be heard by the full City Council on May 30. In a separate investigation, the department is checking into complaints filed by demonstrators and journalists injured during the fracas.

A third LAPD investigation is aimed at searching for those who allegedly started the confrontation by throwing rocks and plastic bottles at officers.

Separately, the Police Commission is investigating the matter, while the FBI launched a preliminary probe to determine whether the LAPD committed civil rights violations.

Police Chief William Bratton has blamed a leadership breakdown at the scene for police measures that he has described as inappropriate.

Bratton, who will be at the LAPD’s assembly area at today’s rally, according to his office, told KPCC-FM on Wednesday that the ranking officer who was in MacArthur Park during the May 1 melee has decided to retire rather than continue on home duty pending an investigation.

Bratton announced last week that Deputy Chief Cayler “Lee” Carter Jr. Carter was being demoted from deputy chief to commander and reassigned from his job as command officer of Operations Central Bureau to his home.

The chief said Wednesday that Carter has decided to retire effective June 6.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border. The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush’s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.

The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush’s top non-war priorities.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called “point system” that would for the first time prioritize immigrants’ education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The draft bill “gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here” illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., one of his party’s key players in the talks, confirmed that the group had reached agreement.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end “chain migration” that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it’s an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.

Virtual Veto Power in Immigration Debate

When Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) declared last week that unnamed “stakeholders” would decide whether Congress overhauls immigration law this year, Latino organizations in Washington understood exactly what he meant.

After laboring in obscurity for decades, groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Forum are virtually being granted veto power over perhaps the biggest domestic issue coming before Congress this year. Organizations that represent what is now the nation’s largest minority group are beginning to achieve power commensurate with their numbers.

“There’s a real sense that the Latino community is key to the solution in this debate, so now they are reaching out to us more than ever,” said Eric Gutierrez, lead lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF. “Neither party wants to make a misstep politically.”

Such groups were practically in the room yesterday, maintaining contact as Democratic and Republican senators tried to hammer out a new immigration bill before a deadline set by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for today before he moved it last night to Monday. The contours began to emerge for a bill that would couple a tightening of border controls with a guest-worker program and new avenues for an estimated 12 million undocumented workers to work legally.

Negotiators agreed yesterday that illegal immigrants would be granted a new Z Visa, allowing legal residency for eight years. During that time, the head of an undocumented household would have to temporarily go back to the home country to apply for permanent U.S. legal status for his or her family. Holders of Z Visas would then have to pay a fine and back taxes, undergo a criminal background check, and begin to work toward citizenship.

But Republicans and Democrats were still trying to bridge a deep divide over two remaining issues: Whether 400,000 foreigners entering the country as temporary workers would have to leave the country after three years or be granted a chance to stay permanently, and how extended family ties should be weighed in granting visas to those seeking to enter the country.

A deal on those tough issues could depend on the assent of Kennedy’s “stakeholders,” Democratic negotiators agreed. Democratic leaders, who are fighting for the loyalty of the fast-growing Latino electorate, have no desire to embrace legislation that could end up alienating the voters they are trying to woo.

The early word from the groups is not promising.

“Some of the proposals that are coming from the negotiations in the Senate and White House are measures that the immigrant community advocates are wholly against, particularly the elimination of some aspects of family reunification,” said William Ramos, a spokesman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

The groups also oppose a policy that would force immigrants to return to their home countries for an extended period and to petition for reentry.

Latino organizations know well that they have muscle to flex. A bill passed by the House last year that would have made illegal immigration a felony drove millions of Latinos into the streets in cities across the country last spring.

When the current immigration law was written 21 years ago, the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, tacitly approved the legislation, even though it provided no direct path to citizenship for most temporary workers. But the Latino community was much smaller then, and illegal immigration was a regional issue, confined mostly to California, Texas and New York.

Today, U.S. citizens of Latino descent, having eclipsed African Americans as the nation’s largest minority, are far more organized and politically active. “We’re not going to let them screw it up,” said Brent A. Wilkes, LULAC’s national executive director.

LULAC, MALDEF, La Raza and the National Immigration Forum are part of a broad network of immigrant rights groups that hold nightly conference calls and strategy sessions on the legislation. The groups speak daily with top aides in Reid’s and Kennedy’s offices.

The White House, well aware that immigration may offer President Bush his last best chance at a major domestic achievement for his second term, has worked hard to keep the groups on board, even as Bush has shifted to the right with a new plan that is tougher than the proposals he embraced last year.

The White House held a meeting 2 1/2 weeks ago with Latino advocates, labor unions and civil rights organizations in which an adviser outlined an administration’s policy based on increased border security and a temporary-worker program. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez have also met with some of the groups.

“At least they are paying attention to us,” said MALDEF President John Trasviña.

The groups have also made it clear to Republicans that they are willing to press hard this year.

“Power is not handed over. To get your place at the table, you have to fight for it,” Wilkes said.

I become increasingly entertained with the concept of Johnny Sutton’s inevitable demise by his own hand. While I think one might be a tad optimistic in believing Sutton and his cabal of fellows and subordinates in the Western District of Texas, where he and they have been doing nothing but regurgitating, practically ad infinitum, the same, tired talking-points and “myths” (many proven lies, as if none were aware) concerning the Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean border shooting of illegal alien drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, could garner any actual jail time resulting from their blatantly hostile and dishonest prosecution of the two former border agents.

I do hold credence in the concept of disbarment hearings for Sutton and company with the preferable outcome actually resulting in banishment from the legal profession altogether. If one has no respect for his or her chosen profession, one should not be engaged in practicing that profession. If that profession involves the professional, through various corrupt and deceptive practices, remanding individuals in a federal penitentiary for 11 and 12 years, then that person should be forcibly removed from that profession. Of course, I would not be sad to see Sutton face more severe punishment.

Now comes word from the private investigator hired by Ramos to locate the illegal drug smuggler, Davila. Apparently Sutton and his crack team of government lawyers and investigators claim they could not locate Davila after the border shooting incident. You might say to yourself, “But they’re the government, they’re super efficient with this sort of thing. If they couldn’t find him, then no one could.” Don’t say that. Okay? It only took one private investigator, Freddie Bonilla, a relatively brief amount of time to ferret out the drug smuggling criminal.

If Sutton is not an efficient tool of the United States government, then he’s either a shill for George W. Bush and the president’s SPP plans, or he’s just a tool. Actually, I’d say Sutton is both.

Marijuana found in the back of the van being used by Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila

A private investigator who was hired by former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos during his trial on allegations he fired at a fleeing drug smuggler says he doesn’t think prosecutors made any significant effort to find the smuggler, later identified as Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila.

Freddie Bonilla told WND that his investigation of the Feb. 17, 2005, incident was straight-forward, and led him quickly to Aldrete-Davila’s identity, and he believes the federal government should have been able to do the same thing.

Bonilla, who was a homicide investigator with the El Paso Police Department and later the chief of detectives for the El Paso Sheriff’s Department, also has served for several decades as a private investigator.

In preparing for the defense of Ramos, who along with Jose Compean was accused of shooting at Aldrete-Davila when Aldrete-Davila’s van – loaded with drugs – was trapped by federal officers and he fled on foot back to Mexico, Bonilla said he started by looking at the van that Aldrete-Davila abandoned at the scene.

“Why didn’t the Drug Enforcement Administration track down the van to find out who the owner was?” Bonilla asked WND. “That van was physical evidence of the crime that was never seriously investigated. Yet, prosecutor [U.S. Attorney] Johnny Sutton has been all over the national media saying there was no physical evidence he could have used to prosecute Aldrete-Davila. What about the van?”

The two former federal agents now are serving prison terms of 11 and 12 years on their convictions for that incident, even though Aldrete-Davila never was charged with the drug case – or a subsequent drug smuggling incident – and in fact was given immunity to testify against the federal border agents.

At the same time, WND reported that the van was towed to the El Paso sheriff’s compound where it sat for approximately one month before the U.S. Border Patrol Evidence Team entered the compound, dusted the vehicle, and found 11 fingerprints, only three of which were duplicates.

But there’s no indication the DEA or Department of Homeland Security investigators ever examined the vehicle or the fingerprints for evidence that might have led to Aldrete-Davila.

Bonilla said he quickly tracked the vehicle to Jesus Beltran, an El Paso self-employed construction worker who buys and sells used cars to supplement his income. Then Beltran examined photos of the van provided by Bonilla, as well as wrecking company towing records, and identified it as one he purchased in 2004 from an El Paso wrecking lot.

He registered it under his name and kept it for five months, then sold it to a friend in Juarez, Mexico, for $1,300. The Texas plates on the car at the time of the Feb. 17, 2005, drug incident were registered to Beltran.

“If I could find the car and how it got down to Mexico,” Bonilla said, “then why couldn’t the DEA or the DHS have tracked down the car in the attempt to find out who the drug smuggler was? Right there I found out far more than anybody ever investigated for the Border Patrol.”

Even after Davila came forth on March 4, 2005, with the Mexican Consulate demanding the prosecution of the Border Patrol agents who shot him, Bonilla felt DEA and DHS should have investigated the van.

“If you tracked down Beltran’s friend in Juarez,” Bonilla argued to WND, “dedicated law enforcement in the U.S. might have uncovered the drug smuggling ring that hired Davila to run that load across the border.”

Bonilla provided WND with photos of the drug van at the levee, where Davila ran the two front wheels over the edge before he abandoned the vehicle in the attempt to escape on foot. Bonilla also provided photos of the 743 pounds of marijuana discovered in the van at the scene of the incident.

Another issue Bonilla raised was the cell phone found in the van after Aldrete-Davila fled. “There were a total of 9 Border Patrol officers on the scene Feb. 17, 2005, plus two supervisors. Why is it that the DEA or DHS never investigated the cell phone Davila left behind? That cell phone should have had valuable numbers in the memory that could have led to Davila or the drug syndicate he worked for.”

The telephone became a subject of questioning at the trial for Ramos and Compean, when Ramos defense attorney Mary Stillinger asked the smuggler about it, and he said he got it from drug dealers in Mexico who hired him to walk across the border, find the marijuana-loaded van with a key in the ignition and drive it away.

But there was a discrepancy between his testimony and the evidence observed by investigators:

Stillinger: The phone that was in the van, was that your telephone, or was that a telephone that was given to you for the purpose of helping you to do this transaction? Aldrete-Davila: Yeah, they gave it to me when I got on the van. When they sent me there, they gave it to me. I didn’t have a telephone.

Stillinger: Okay. And they gave you the phone charger with it?

Aldrete-Davila: No, just the telephone.

Stillinger: Okay. So the phone charger – there was a phone charger in the van, wasn’t there?

Aldrete-Davila: I don’t know. They just gave me the telephone. I don’t know if there was a charger or not.

Aldrete-Davila further testified that the phone was Nextel and that the drug users used the radio feature, not the telephone, to communicate. He also testified that he did not plug the phone into a charger.

“The whole thing with the cell phone was ridiculous,” Bonilla told WND. “That cell phone should have been the first thing DEA or DHS should have been investigated to find Davila or his drug smuggling partners.”

“Besides, Davila was lying about everything,” Bonilla told WND. “He never explained how that white van on the other side of the Rio Grande knew to be there waiting for him when he ran away. Did he call his buddies when he was evading the Border Patrol hot pursuit? How come DEA or DHS didn’t look into whether Davila called anybody when he was running away?”

He also offered an explanation for why Compean and Border Patrol Agent Arturo Vasquez picked up the spent shell casings expended when Compean and Ramos fired at the fleeing smuggler.

“I was a firearms trainer in the Marine Corps,” Bonilla said, “and from the first day at the firing range through 26 years in law enforcement, it was hammered into my head that the first command after you finish shooting is to load and holster your weapon, and the second command is always, to pick up your brass or shell casings.”

He also suggested that Border Patrol supervisor Jonathan Richards, who was also on the scene in 2005, should have known there had been trouble. “Richards was the main supervisor at the scene and he was made aware there had been shooting, despite what he testified at trial,” Bonilla insisted. “Richards saw Agent Compean covered with dirt and bleeding from the face. But he convinced Compean that if Compean reported the matter, that it would require a lot of paper work, and then having to go to the F.B.I.”

That would corroborate an earlier report when WND examined the transcript of a May 15, 2005 job suspension hearing Compean had with El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Louis Barker, in which Compean said Richards discouraged him from filing written reports after the incident with Davila.

Besides the Ramos-Compean case, there also has been an uproar over the conviction of Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez, who fired his weapon at a van loaded with illegal aliens he thought were trying to run him down. He was convicted for that and he’s scheduled for sentencing later this month.

Yet another that already has been resolved, at the expense of a former federal agent, involves David Sipe, who was accused of improperly hitting a coyote [someone who smuggles illegal aliens into the U.S.] while he was resisting arrest with a flashlight. He was convicted and sent to prison before an appellate court overturned his conviction, and he was acquitted during a re-trial in January.

However, Sipe lost both his career and marriage because of the charges against him.

The below news article by Daily Bulletin staff writer, Sara A. Carter confirms what most of us have suspected for a very long time: Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila did smuggle an additional load of drugs into the country after U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton and his office had already given Davila immunity from prosecution provided he would testify against former border patrol agents, and current political prisoners, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. This despite the fact Sutton himself has repeatedly denied allegations Davila had ever been known to sneak another van load of drugs into the country after he was granted immunity and after Sutton’s office, in the name of U.S. citizens everywhere (natural born and legal immigrant) had given Davila an immigration card that freely allowed the illegal alien drug smuggler unfettered access between Mexico and the United States.

From the article…

Sutton said in a Jan. 17 “Myths vs. Reality” press release that “Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling. Our office is in the business of prosecuting drug traffickers and alien smugglers … If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him.”

Sutton’s assertion that Aldrete-Davila has not been arrested is accurate. However, an Oct. 25, 2005, DEA report shows that DEA investigators believed they had sufficient evidence to indict Aldrete-Davila, but their requests to do so were denied by prosecutors.

Why? Obviously, so Sutton, Kanof, et. al. could proceed with their mendacious litigation against two border patrol agents who are spending 11 and 12 years in jail for simply doing their jobs. In their bloodlust, the prosecution was more concerned with destroying two American citizens than prosecuting a known drug smuggler from the Mexican drug cartels; a drug smuggler who was painted by Sutton’s office as a poor, pathetic schmuck who simply was trying to sell a few drugs in order to help his ailing mother in Mexico.

This offers more hope for Ramos and Compean. Hope? Hope is indicative of maybe/possibly reasoning. This offers more concrete evidence that Ramos and Compean will be exonerated and released sooner rather than later. If the information about Davila was with held from the defense, which is appears to have been, then Sutton will be looking at even more legal trouble for himself and his staff, including Debra Kanof.

Did Ramos and Compean make mistakes? Of course. Do they deserve the sentences that were handed down to them–11 and 12 years? Of course not, and anyone who does believe the two former agents received an appropriate judgment can only be in favor of the U.S. becoming a totalitarian police state with President Bush as its despot. Hyperbole? Possibly.

So, while Sutton continues to lie by parsing his verbiage, dodging facts while disseminating half-truths in order to avoid the inevitable investigation that will hopefully sweep through him and his office, Ramos and Compean continue to languish in prison, products of a west Texas judicial system in arrears and sorely in need of a good enema.

The Mexican national shot by two Border Patrol agents in a drug-related incident in February 2005 brought a second van load of drugs into the U.S. while he waited to testify against the agents, according to Drug Enforcement Administration reports obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila – who was given immunity by U.S. prosecutors in exchange for testifying against former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean – is the focus of a November 2005 DEA report that identifies him as the person responsible for stashing more than 750 pounds of marijuana in a van parked at a house in Clint, Texas, in October of that year.

“(A witness) stated that Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was the individual that dropped off the 1990 Chevy Astro van,” according to the DEA document. “This van contained approximately 6 bundles of marijuana.”

DEA interviews with the Clint house’s owner, Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez, led to Ortiz-Hernandez’s brother, Jose Ortiz, who told DEA agents that Aldrete-Davila had moved the narcotics from Juarez to El Paso, adding that the van Aldrete-Davila was driving needed work, so he referred him to his mechanic brother, Cipriano.”Jose Ortiz thought for a minute, and then stated that we should know Davila’s identity because he is the person who was shot by Border Patrol agents six months ago,” the report states.

Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez also identified Aldrete-Davila as the van’s driver after seeing a photo array, according to the DEA documents.

Aldrete-Davila was shot in the buttocks after fleeing a van filled with marijuana and running away from Border Patrol agents in a February 2005 incident near Fabens, Texas, about seven miles from Clint.

Ramos and Compean are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in federal prison after being convicted in March 2006 of assault with a deadly weapon, attempting to cover up their actions, and violating Aldrete-Davila’s civil rights.

Both men testified that they thought Aldrete had a gun in his hand while they were chasing him, and feared for their lives when they fired on him.

Aldrete-Davila was given immunity to testify against the agents, along with a special border crossing pass and free medical treatment at a U.S. Army medical center.

Western District of Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted Ramos and Compean, has denied numerous times that Aldrete-Davila brought a second load of narcotics into the United States after being granted immunity.

Sutton said in a Jan. 17 “Myths vs. Reality” press release that “Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling. Our office is in the business of prosecuting drug traffickers and alien smugglers … If we had a provable case against Aldrete, we would prosecute him.”

Sutton’s assertion that Aldrete-Davila has not been arrested is accurate. However, an Oct. 25, 2005, DEA report shows that DEA investigators believed they had sufficient evidence to indict Aldrete-Davila, but their requests to do so were denied by prosecutors.

According to a high-level source close to the investigation, Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Gregory was notified in October 2005 that Aldrete-Davila was being investigated by the DEA and that the agency had new evidence against him.

Gregory dismissed the warning, the source said.

Shana Jones, special assistant to Sutton, said she could not comment on Gregory’s meeting with the DEA, or on the DEA documents.

“We have posted the transcript of the (agents’) trial,” Jones said. “We are not going to comment about matters that are under seal or are ongoing investigations.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., received a phone call this morning from the Justice Department urging him not to release Drug Enforcement Agency investigative reports that confirm a previous WND story presenting evidence the drug smuggler given immunity to testify against border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was involved in a second smuggling incident.

Rohrabacher’s spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, told WND the Justice Department “reminded us not to disclose any documents that might compromise an on-going investigation.

But Setmayer said Rohrabacher’s office did not have any information about current DEA or Department of Homeland Security investigations.

She said the purpose of a press conference scheduled for this afternoon “is to get to the bottom of what prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton knew about (drug smuggler Osbaldo) Aldrete-Davila and to let the public know that we have seen government investigative reports that document a second October 2005 drug incident that was not released to the jury.”

Asked whether she thought the Justice Department’s phone call was an attempt to protect Sutton, Setmayer said: “I’m not willing to make that statement at this time.”

She said Rohrabacher will call for hearings today.

“We need to get to the bottom of this,” Setmayer said. “We need congressional hearings so we can get all the facts before the American people.

As WND reported, Rohrabacher is calling for a new trial, charging the new documents show Sutton “knowingly presented a false picture of the drug smuggler in order to justify his ruthless prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.”

Rohrabacher’s press conference is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Eastern time in the House TV Gallery, H-321, in Washington.

As the Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean fiasco gains momentum with those who support the two incarcerated agents specifically, the border patrol generally, and the probe into questionable conduct by U.S. Attorney, Johnny Sutton and company, so too does this story gain detractors–detractors who generally have no more than a broad understanding of the incident, the trial, and the recent firestorm of outrage from the public and a growing number of congressmen and senators who are understandably demanding an investigation of Sutton, his office, and the DHS among others for their dubious ethics in regards to the apparent railroading of Ramos and Compean.

So the [right] wingnuts have taken to calling Johnny Sutton an “agent of the Mexican government,” demanded that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez step into the case and generally made a big stink on right-wing talk radio, blogs and on their fake “news” sites like Townhall and WorldNetDaily. It’s all gotten conflated with the rank-and-file rebellion against the Republican Party over immigration. To many on the right, the two dirty cops are “illegal immigration heroes.”[bold emphasis]

Whoa..everyone here needs to chill out. First, shooting someone in the back is not a “heroic” action. I don’t know who taught you right from wrong, but you need to do some serious soul searching if you thing this is alright.

First, the comment by Anonymous is indicative of those who know little about the circumstances of the case. Compean claimed the illegal alien drug runner had a shiny object in his hand and it appeared as if the fugitive was turning to use it. Making the assumption that it was a gun, you simply cannot tell agent Compean that the suspect did not have a gun. If he saw what he thought was a gun, Compean has the right to defend himself. This is basic police policy. What would normal human being do in a similar situation?

As for both comments above, I call them heroes because they do something most of us don’t have the balls to do, and they do it every day. They protect us with their own lives on the line, regardless of their imperfections–the same imperfections many of us have. The same can be said of firemen, marines, policemen, etc. I am a television producer. I am not a hero. Ramos and Compean are heroes.

Holland’s comments are rife with liberal political partisanship when this is simply a matter of justice–left and right should make no difference. Of course, I would be a hypocrite if I said I don’t include opinion in my writing (for crying out loud, this is a blog after all), but Holland even ridicules news outlets for offering information that doesn’t line up with his liberal leanings. The Onion is a “fake” news site. World Net Daily is not. Whether you are uncomfortable with the level of bias World Net Daily delivers, dubbing it fake is odd. Alternet.com takes a similar approach, but I would not pin them as “fake” because of the political bias. Their leading headline, Bush is Screwing Up the War on Terror I couldn’t agree with more. Does this make me a liberal? No (though some neo-cons would strongly disagree.) Does reading World Net Daily make me conservative? No. I never agree with every story a news outlet pushes on any website I visit or any publication I read. To do so would be mindless.

Personally I visit several news sites, conservative and liberal, and while I prefer to think of myself as a moderate, I often find myself leaning toward, what to me is, the more stable and thoughtful stance, and that generally leans to the right.

…December 12, the holiday celebrating the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe. What materialized in front of the Swift gates that morning was more like a vision of hell. Shortly after 7 am a half-dozen buses rolled up with a small fleet of government vans, which unloaded dozens of heavily armed federal agents backed by riot-clad local police. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents sealed off all entrances and exits and formed a perimeter around the factory. Then others barged inside and started rounding up the whole workforce.

Some of the frightened workers jumped into cattle pens; others hid behind machinery or in closets. Those who tried to run were wrestled to the ground. Sworn statements by some workers allege that the ICE agents used chemical sprays to subdue those who didn’t understand the orders barked at them in English. The plant’s entire workforce was herded into the cafeteria and separated into two groups: those who claimed to be US citizens or legal residents and those who didn’t.

Talk about appeals to emotion. The entire article is much like this–one big hyperbolic mess with absolutely no respect for American citizens, native born or immigrant. Vision of hell? A fleet of government vans? They barged inside? What constitutes a vision of hell? I’ve never been there (and hope I never pay a visit), so why the drama? I’m assuming that a fleet constitutes at least two vehicles, but the apparent tone conveyed here is to insinuate a large group of military vehicles filled with nasty-bad government agents, who in reality are simply doing their jobs, much like Ramos and Compean did. And they barged into a facility that was breaking the law by employing illegal immigrants, many of whom were shown to be guilty of identity theft which obviously illustrates why many of the workers initially attempted to hide and flee.

Curiously, pro-illegal immigrant activists, many of whom are liberals, simply don’t understand that they’re in the same boat with President Bush on this issue. You guys actually agree on something–Bush wants a low-paid, easily exploitable workforce and so do you. For many other reasons as well, I do not want to exploit poor illegal aliens. I desire an improved immigration system that starts with sharpened enforcement at the border.

More from The Nation article…

“By saying these raids were about identity theft, ICE and the Bush Administration suddenly changed the rules of the game,” says Mark Grey, director of the Iowa Center for Immigrant Leadership and Integration. By highlighting the identity-theft angle, DHS officials have cast into a sinister light a common practice, at worst a victimless crime.

Hyperbole is one thing. Fabrication is another. Identity theft is never victimless, and it’s a crime that’s growing as more illegals flow into the country unfettered due to our porous border. I’ve heard illegal immigration apologists attempt to explain it away as an inevitability (and that seems to excuse it for them) but I’ve never heard or read anyone be so bold as to state identity theft is victimless. Tell that Linda Trevino and Steve Millet and the many thousands more victims of illegal immigrants who stole identity information of legal residents.

More from The Nation story…

…says an indignant Robert McCormick, a Greeley immigration attorney representing about sixteen of the workers. “This is indeed a declaration of war on the immigrant community. This is about Republicans trying to appease their core bloc of supporters. Yeah, some people got a big kick out of this. But I think most Americans were revolted by it. Here in town, a lot of people have said they want no part of it. And others, I assure you, are going to wind up being very ashamed of it.”

As someone who supports stronger borders and LEGAL immigration I find particularly infuriating how often illegal immigration activists love to leave out the word illegal when discussing the subject of illegal immigration. I am wholly against illegal immigration. I am completely in support of legal immigration. As cheesy as this sounds, I am filled with joy (yes, filled with joy) when ever I hear “The American Dream” story, particularly centered around immigrants–immigrants who came to this country with little to nothing, and managed great successes for themselves. Whether they became CEO of a corporation, or they simply bought a home in the Midwest, I am always pleased when immigrants successfully weave themselves into the fabric of our society.

Conversely, it saddens me when illegals enter the country and fail to even attempt at integration. This post from last summer clearly demonstrates this problem. As I state in that piece (accompanied with the L.A. Times article, 6+1=1 Tenuous Existence), immigrant assimilation is the best means to achieve success in a foreign society.

From the mentioned post…

[L.A. Times – Neither Magdaleno nor her husband speaks English, though she has been in the United States 22 years and he 28. Even her teenage daughters speak mostly Spanish; their English vocabulary is limited.

Jesus Christ! Twenty-two and 28 years and they still haven’t learned English? None?! What’s even more frightening is the fact that their teenage children barely speak English as well. This is very sad. To me, it speaks volumes on Mexican familial culture–how improving oneself is simply sneaking across the border and continuing a genealogy that one was trying to escape in the first place.]

As I’ve said before, I don’t blame poor Mexicans (or Chinese, or Indians, etc.) their need to come to this country for a better life. I blame this presidency and his administration for their failures to secure our border. When illegals enter the country, bypassing the proper channels to become legal residents, they will almost always fail to integrate. This often translates into large, poor illegal immigrant ghettos that do nothing to support the economy while serving as ethnocentric pools of resentment and anger towards the community, the city, and the country where in they now reside.

Also from commenter, Anonymous…

It is also a ridiculous statement to say that immigrants are “rotting” this country. If immigrants did not “rot” America for the first 300 years, how are they doing it now? The crime, gangs, and drugs would be here whether these people came or not. Crime was an issue long before immigration.

I may have been participating in dramatic license, but it is true, the more unrestricted illegal weight bears down on this country, or any country for that matter (France anyone?), the more damaged it becomes–more rotten. Here are some interesting statistics from the L.A. Times, an infamously pro-illegal immigration, liberal publication…

– 40 percent of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes. Why would they want to be legal and pay taxes? They would be able to start bringing the rest of their families to the USA.

– 75 percent of people on L.A.’s most-wanted list are illegal aliens.

– Over two-thirds of all births are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by the taxpayers.

[Anonymous] The crime, gangs, and drugs would be here whether these people came or not. Crime was an issue long before immigration.

– The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border.[Hecubus] Additionally, if our border was more secure, we would be dealing with fewer drug and crime problems. Would we still have crime and drugs? Of course, but it would be diminished.

– Nearly 60 percent of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

– 29 percent of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

– The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative.

– They also send between about $15 billion back to Mexico to assist their families and prop up the corrupt Mexican government that keeps most of its citizens in poverty.

– It cost Los Angeles $276 million in welfare costs for 100,000 children of illegal aliens.

[Anonymous] And please don’t get indignant and act like you don’t reap the benefits of undocumented workers. You like your oranges cheap. All of your products that are “Made in America” have most likely gone through the hands of undocumented workers at some point. Deep down you know that these people are benefitting you.

– Less than 2 percent of illegals are picking crops but 29 percent are on welfare.

Add to that California alone spent nearly $8 billion dollars in 2004 to educate illegal alien children and children of illegals. Also, the rate at which emergency rooms in California are closing due to EMTALA and illegal aliens not paying E.R. bills is astonishing. Who ends up footing the bill for these unpaid costs? American citizens.

[Anonymous] I am Mexican, and I don’t believe I have any diseases that are foreign to this country. I don’t believe that I have ever brought any foreign diseases back to the U.S. from my travels. You need to get the facts straight.

Also, many diseases are on the rise due to illegal immigration. I’m not saying you’re disease ridden, Anonymous. I’m simply pointing out facts that many illegals who do not go through proper immigration channels are carriers of communicable diseases. Some illnesses thought to have been nearly squashed are on the rise again because of this–plague, dengue fever, and polio. Even leprosy has seen an alarming rise in regularity because of illegal immigrants.

Anyway, there is a horrible misconception in this country right now, based mostly on what people hear rather than on what they know, that illegal immigrants perform jobs that Americans won’t do (though of late, this has been altered by illegal immigrant activists to “jobs Americans are too qualified for” since the condescending catch-phrase “jobs Americans wont do” was failing miserably.) This is patently false, but it’s been regurgitated over and over so much that people simply accept it. (There was an incident recently in the post-Katrina south where African Americans looking for work at a specific job site were told to go home because “the Mexicans” were coming to work for less pay.)

For those of us living in border states, particularly southern California, keep in mind that Latino workers makes up only 5% the total workforce in the United States, and they don’t make up a majority of the workforce in any occupation in America–yes, not even car washing, gardening, or house cleaning.

Much of the problem lies with employers, such as Swift Co. from The Nation article mentioned above, who hire illegals for a lower wage than actual American citizens are willing to take (well below minimum.) It’s about a fair wage. Pay American citizens a fair wage and they will do those jobs that so many are claiming only illegals will do because we, as American citizens, are too good to get our hands dirty. In fact, if there weren’t as many illegals doing “jobs Americans won’t do” then Americans would be able to fill those jobs, probably promoting a general increase in wages for many Americans altogether.

American citizens are doing jobs throughout the country that illegal immigrant activists say they won’t do. Americans are making livings and getting paid fair wages gardening, house cleaning, building homes, and working at McDonalds. Often views are skewed by where people live (border states) and what they see in the news.

Many legal immigrants (Latino and otherwise) find great offense to the idea of illegals getting any sort of benefits, let alone amnesty, by being in the country without having gone through the proper channels. Most immigrants have waited with great patience, going through those proper channels in order to become American citizens. The general disdain and disrespect pro-illegal immigration protestors and activists have towards the country that they are trying to win favor from is galling.

What needs to happen? Mexico needs to step up to the plate and provide for its citizens, and the United States needs to stop paying their bills without any help from Mexico. Mexico relies on the fact that its citizens emigrate to the US. It even took out full page ads in American newspapers supporting Bush’s guest worker program! It’s what keeps the rich wealthy, and the poor even poorer. The corruptness of the Mexican government is abhorrent, and if it were governed with any sense of responsibility (doubtful there will be any change even with the new leadership), the situation would probably be different, especially considering Mexico is rich in natural resources. What the illegal immigrant demonstrators and activists should do is use that same determination to protest their own government in Mexico to incite change instead of alienating the American audience it’s trying to win over.

Ultimately this is not a racist issue, at least for me. This is about providing American citizens a fair shot and keeping our economy running smoothly. Simply, if you pay people more money, they put more money back into the economy. If you pay them less, they put less back in, which weakens the economy. Add to that, most illegal immigrants send much of the money they make back to their families in Mexico and you can see how much of problem this will ultimately become (and already is.)

Sen. Feinstein’s office told WND scheduling difficulties were responsible for the cancellation of the Feb. 27 hearing and her office anticipates that a new hearing date will be set soon. A spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he was disappointed to hear of the postponement, noting the senator’s staff had done extensive work in preparation. As WND reported, Feinstein received permission from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to examine the cases.

The Bush administration has drawn strong criticism from Republican congressmen angry about its handling of a case in which two border agents were given 11- and 12-year sentences after granting a drug smuggler immunity to testify against them.

“I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme, given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs,” Feinstein said in a statement. “These men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn’t receive.” Leahy’s office did not return WND’s call for comment.

Why are Mexican officials more concerned about prosecuting Americans (i.e. the Ramos-Compean prosecution) than preventing their citizens from crossing over the border into the United States? This is particularly curious considering Mexico’s own stance on lawbreakers illegally entering their country–admirably strict. If only the Bush administration were as diligent as Mexico concerning illegal immigration.

But alas, we have a broken immigration and enforcement system and an impotent presidency that really should transfer illegal alien and border policing from the federal level to the local level. Considering California is eating millions of dollars worth of state money to house criminal aliens in our state and city prisons with no federal payback funds planned in order to reimburse the cost to accommodate those illegals, it’s an outrage that this state cannot deal with the out-of-control illegal immigration problem ourselves while refraining from demonizing border agents doing the jobs they were hired to perform (I’m looking at you Texas.)

Apparently Mexico has a nice tight hold on the ear of U.S. Prosecutor extreme, Johnny Sutton, particularly in the Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean case, but evidently in other cases involving American law enforcement officials as well. It’s obvious Sutton is an agent of Bush, but is he also an agent of the Mexican government?

The Mexican Consulate played a previously undisclosed role in the events leading to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s high-profile prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for their role in the shooting of a drug smuggler, according to documents obtained by WND.

And Mexican consular officials also demanded the prosecution of Texas Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo “Gilmer” Hernandez, who subsequently was brought to trial by Sutton, the documents reveal.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas – among a number of congressman who have fiercely opposed the prosecution of Ramos and Compean – told WND he has “long suspected that Mexican government officials ordered the prosecution of our law enforcement agents.”

“Mexico wants to intimidate our law enforcement into leaving our border unprotected, and we now have confirmation of it in writing,” Culberson said.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, was equally outraged.

“The Mexican government should do more to keep illegals from Mexico from crossing into the United States, especially drug dealers, rather than be concerned about our border agents,” he told WND. “The U.S. Justice Department should not be working for the Mexican government.”

The White House and Sutton’s office in El Paso, Texas, did not respond to calls from WND asking for comment.

Hernandez’s attorney Jimmy Parks of San Antonio, Texas, told WND the documents “prove that it is wrong for my client to be in jail.”

“The prosecution of my client sends a wrong message to criminal illegal immigrants who are being tempted to cross our borders with impunity,” he said.

Mexico intervenes

WND has obtained a copy of a letter written April 18, 2005, by Mexican Consul Jorge Ernesto Espejel Montes in Eagle Pass, Texas, demanding Hernandez be prosecuted for injuring a Mexican national, Marciela Rodriguez Garcia.

The first two paragraphs of the letter set out the facts of the case as understood by the Mexican consul. The letter is reproduced here as written:

I am addressing to you, regarding the case of the Mexican national, Ms. MARICELA RODRIGUEZ GARCIA (DOB 4-11-1979), who based on the information obtained by this Consulate, received a gunshot wound by an agent of the Sheriff Department of Edward County, that caused injuries in her face. As far aw we know, last April 15, 2005, the Mexican national was transported in first insistence to Val Verde Hospital in Del Rio, Tx, and then to San Antonio, Tx., where she was attended at the University Hospital. Today, Mr. Gabriel Salas a member of the staff of this office had the opportunity of interviewed Ms. RODRIGUEZ who confirms the facts of the incident.

The final two paragraphs contain the demands of the Mexican consul:

Based on the Consular Convention between Mexico and the United States and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Consulate of Mexico is entitled to represent, protect and defend the rights of Mexican nationals in this country. Therefore, I would like to point out, that is the care of my Country that this kind of incidents against our nationals, do not remain unpunished. According to the information provided above, I would appreciate your kind assistance, so this Consulate can be informed of the current investigation, and your support, so you present and file a complaint with the necessaries arraignments.

WND has learned the Mexican consul addressed separate copies of the letter to the following parties:

WND also has learned that on April 29, 2005, Sheriff Lettsinger in Edwards County advised that the Texas Rangers met with the district attorney in Del Rio and was told the state of Texas had been removed from the Hernandez case because the FBI and the federal government were taking over.

The Mexican national Rodriguez was in a Chevrolet Suburban van full of illegals that attempted to run over Hernandez after he had stopped the vehicle for running a stop sign April 14, 2005, in Rocksprings, Texas. Firing his weapon at the rear tires, a bullet fragment hit Rodriguez in the mouth, cutting her lip and breaking two teeth.

In the case of agents Ramos and Compean, WND has obtained notes made by a congressional staff member who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with three investigators from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office.

The staff member’s notes indicate the Inspector General’s office briefed the congressmen that the Mexican consul had also intervened in the Ramos and Compean case.

According to the notes obtained by WND, the congressmen were told:

Several weeks later (after the February 17, 2005 event near Fabens, Texas), the Mexican Consulate contacted the U.S. Consulate in Mexico saying that they have a person who claims to have been shot by a Border Patrol agent. On March 4, 2005, the U.S. Consulate contacted the U.S. attorney.

DHS investigative reports filed by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez document that March 4, 2005, is the date on which DHS initiated the Ramos-Compean investigation.

WND can find no evidence the Border Patrol, DHS, or U.S. Attorney Sutton had started any investigation of Ramos or Compean concerning the events of Feb. 17, 2005, prior to March 4, 2005.

‘Dictating’ policy

“The Mexican government should not be dictating United States border policy,” Poe told WND after learning of the Mexican consul’s involvement in both cases.

Culberson agreed.

“We have it in writing,” he told WND, “a letter from the Mexican Consulate in the case of the deputy sheriff from Edwards County and verbal confirmation of the Mexican Consulate’s complaint in the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.”

Culberson told WND it is “outrageous and unacceptable that our government is prosecuting U.S. law enforcement officials at the request of the Mexican government.”

The congressman said the revelations suggest national security may be at risk:

“U.S. national security interests in the war on terror must determine how we protect our border, not the opinions of the Mexican government,” he said.

Culberson called for a congressional investigation, telling WND, “We’ve now got to find out how many other Mexican government complaints have led to the prosecutions of our law enforcement officers on the border, and this intimidation must stop.”

Previous accounts in question

Sutton’s claim he learned about the identity of the drug smuggler in the Ramos-Compean case, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, through consular contacts originating in Mexico apparently contradicts his explanation in an exclusive interview with WND Jan. 19, Sutton said his office learned the identity of Aldrete-Davila from a lawyer in Mexico representing the drug smuggler.

WND: So, Aldrete-Davila ran away, and as you say, at the time you didn’t have any basis to know who he was and there were no fingerprints. But yet, you found the guy. If you found the guy to give him immunity, why couldn’t you have found the guy to punish him? SUTTON: The way we found him is that he came forward and was in Mexico with a lawyer. So, the only way to get him to testify was to give him immunity from being prosecuted. He wasn’t going to agree to come to the United States, he wasn’t going to agree to talk, unless he had some kind of immunity from being prosecuted for that load. So, that puts the prosecutor in the terrible choice of everyone goes free, we got no case against the dope dealer, we cannot make a case against the dope dealer because there’s no evidence, thanks to agents and other factors.

Sutton’s account also appears to contradict the March 14, 2005, memo from Special Agent Christopher Sanchez which claimed the government learned Aldrete-Davila’s identity from Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez in Willcox, Ariz.

As WND reported, Christopher Sanchez’s memo had claimed Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico. Rene Sanchez, the memo said, learned Aldrete-Davila was the drug smuggler involved in the incident with agents Ramos and Compean after his mother-in-law had a phone call with Aldrete-Davila’s mother in Mexico.

The memo also indicates the shooting was reported to the Mexican Consulate.

Rene Sanchez said that his mother-in-law Gregoria Toquinto went to Mexico to help her friend Marcadia take her son Osbaldo to the Mexican Consulate to report the shooting incident. However, Osbaldo declined to go. Marcadia advised Toquinto that Osbaldo did not want to report the incident, because he had actually been transporting a load of marijuana and was afraid the Mexican and/or U.S. authorities would put him in jail.

Redman was one of three DHS investigators who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with the four Texas Republican congressman. The other two investigators were identified to WND as Tamara Faulkner and James Taylor.

As WND reported, DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted under oath Feb. 6 that Redman and the other investigators had misled the Texas congressmen. Skinner was responding to questioning by Culberson before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Skinner admitted, contrary to previous claims, DHS did not have investigative reports that would prove Ramos and Compean were rogue Border Patrol agents who told investigators they were “out to shoot some Mexicans” the day of the incident with Aldrete-Davila.

Culberson since has called for the resignation of the investigators.

Ramos-Compean trial

The Mexican consul’s role in revealing the identity of Aldrete-Davila also conflicts with prosecutor Debra Kanof’s opening statement to the jury in the Ramos-Compean trial.

According to a copy of the statement obtained by WND, Kanof explained the following to the jury Feb. 21, 2006:

Rene Sanchez is stationed in Willcox, Arizona. He’s actually from El Paso. And sometime in the last couple of days of February he got a phone call from his mother-in-law. And his mother-in-law lives in Mexico, in a little town on the outskirts of Juarez. And she told him that she had been talking to a friend of hers, a girlfriend of hers, and that that girlfriend had told her that her son, the girlfriend’s son, had been shot in back by a Border Patrol agent outside of El Paso, Texas, somewhere near San Elizario.

From there, Kanof explained how Rene Sanchez investigated.

So Rene Sanchez investigated. He made some phone calls to people he knew in El Paso and asked if there was a shooting. First he needed to find out, however, when that occurred and approximately where it occurred. So he immediately reported it to his supervisor in Willcox, Arizona, who told him to get more information, which he did by calling his mother-in-law. And he instructed his mother-in-law to take a cell phone – his mother-in-law actually lives in El Paso – to take a cell phone to Mexico, give that cell phone to the individual who was shot, and have them call me, so I can get some facts. And that, he did.

The individual who shot is an individual by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. And Rene Sanchez spoke with him on the phone, and he gave him information about what occurred that day.

Kanof said nothing to the jury suggesting the information about Aldrete-Davila actually came from the Mexican consul, who contacted the American Consulate in Mexico, who in turn contacted DHS and prosecutor Sutton’s office.

While Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, Aldrete-Davila has found an American lawyer and plans to sue the Border Patrol for $5 million for allegedly violating his civil rights.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General’s office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:

confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;

were belligerent to investigators;

destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: “The person who told you that misinformed you,” Skinner reportedly replied.

This certainly explains quite a bit. The above admission by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, Richard Skinner confirms what many have suspected for sometime now–the government has been conspiring to cover up and bury their inappropriate and criminal actions in regards to their malicious prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Johnny Sutton, Debra Kanof, Richard Skinner, Alberto Gonzales, and George Bush, to name a few, are all abject con artists and despicable examples of human beings. They didn’t simply lie to protect their own asses. They lied in order to send two good men to jail–men who had only done as they were trained to do by the federal government and the border patrol. How long does this trail of lies extend? How many more deceptions and untruths yet remain tucked away in order to protect reputations of dishonorable people who have no shame?

Additionally, we now know for certain there were several accompanying border agents, including two supervisors, near the altercation that occurred between Ramos, Compean, and the illegal alien drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrette-Davila. According to the firearms policy for border patrol personnel agents are not required to file written reports concerning a shooting incident. As reported in a previous post, border agents must offer only an oral report to a supervisor after the fact. Ramos and Compean did as they were trained, providing an oral report to not one, but two attending supervisors.

Oscar Garcia, El Paso Border Patrol Union representative with Local 1929 and a firearms instructor, said that the Report of Apprehension or Seizure filed by Compean and Ramos on the day of the incident was accurate. Garcia stated that the agent’s omission of the shooting in the drug seizure report followed firearms policy.

“Our own policy prohibits them from filing any report on the shooting incident,” Garcia said. “The U.S. Attorney’s assertion that they covered up the incident by not filing a report is ridiculous.”

Ridiculous indeed. Yet Sutton, with whom I’ve have previously compared to an annoying parrot, has screeched ad infinitum over the last couple of months that the central reason for prosecuting and ultimately sentencing Ramos and Compean to federal prison was a result of the former border agents filing false paperwork and their attempt to willingly conceal evidence of their supposed crime–the shooting of illegal alien drug smuggler, Davila.

From a 2005 memo written by inspector, David Sanchez of the DHS Inspector Generals office…

“Investigation disclosed that the following Border Patrol agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez, Arturo Vasquez, Jose Mendoza, David Jaquez, Lance Medrano, Lorenzo Yrigoyen, Rene Mendez, Robert Arnold, and Jonathan Richards,” Sanchez wrote.

Furthermore…

Arnold and Richards were the two supervisors on the scene that day.

Richards was given a promotion shortly after the incident and testified against the agents. Agents Vasquez, Juarez and Jaquez were given immunity from prosecution to testify against Ramos and Compean.

If I didn’t know better, or I thought the best in people (God forbid), I would strongly suspect Richards had been awarded his promotion as a coercive tactic by the prosecution in order to give him a bit more incentive to testify against Ramos and Compean. Unfortunately, mostly due to the policies of the current Presidency and the deceptive actions cheerfully employed by U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton and his staff of cockroaches in the railroading case against the two former border agents, I do not think the best of people right now.

I can only hope the political prisoners Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean will see their freedom soon as a result of these obviously obfuscatory and underhanded machinations by the United States government.

Once again, diligent and tireless journalists Jerome Corsi and Sara A. Carter should be commended for their efforts in this matter.

A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they “wanted to shoot some Mexicans” prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment. The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.

Culberson was questioning Skinner about a meeting DHS officials had Sept. 26 with him and three other Republican congressman from Texas, Reps. Ted Poe, Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant.

WND previously reported that at that meeting the DHS Inspector General’s office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:

confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;

were belligerent to investigators;

destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: “The person who told you that misinformed you,” Skinner reportedly replied.

This prompted a startled and angry response from Culberson, who charged Skinner’s office with lying to the Texas congressmen and painting Ramos and Compean as dirty cops.

Responding to Skinner’s testimony yesterday, Poe said it “explains why DHS has been stonewalling Congress.”

“DHS didn’t turn over the reports to us to back up their September 26 accusations for one simple reason – the reports never existed,” the Texas congressman said.

“Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?” he asked. “I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn’t true?”

Poe said he’s determined to get to the bottom of DHS’s claim.

“I expect this new revelation will lead to a lot more questions before we’re done,” he said.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND the DHS’s actions “represent obstruction of justice, and they should be held in contempt of Congress, and, if possible, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

“This admission today is yet more proof of how they are willing to distort the facts, as I have charged all along, in order to ensure a conviction,” he said.

Two convicted former El Paso Border Patrol agents accused by the U.S. Attorney of not filing a report when they shot a Mexican drug smuggler were prohibited by their own agency’s firearms policy from doing so, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

Meanwhile, the government made public Monday its response to Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos’ October motion to reduce his sentence.

The response contends that Ramos and fellow agent Jose Alonso Compean knowingly shot an unarmed suspect, filed a false report, and that supervisors were not notified.

Attached to the motion were domestic violence arrest reports regarding three disputes Ramos had with his wife, Monica. Those documents were not admissible during the agents’ trial. Ramos was not charged with a crime stemming from the incidents.

Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican drug smuggler, in the buttocks on Feb. 17, 2005. The agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in federal prison.

The agents were convicted partly due to the government’s successful argument at trial that the two men failed to file a report about the shooting.But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

“Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident,” according to the firearms policy.

“All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local INS investigating officers and shall be based upon an interview of the INS employee.”

INS refers to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which oversaw the Border Patrol prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The shooting policy has remained unchanged.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General documents obtained by the paper show that all nine agents on the scene at the time of the shooting – including two supervisors – knew shots had been fired.

Oscar Garcia, El Paso Border Patrol Union representative with Local 1929 and a firearms instructor, said that the Report of Apprehension or Seizure filed by Compean and Ramos on the day of the incident was accurate. Garcia stated that the agent’s omission of the shooting in the drug seizure report followed firearms policy.

“Our own policy prohibits them from filing any report on the shooting incident,” Garcia said. “The U.S. Attorney’s assertion that they covered up the incident by not filing a report is ridiculous.”

Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for western Texas whose office prosecuted the case against the agents, contends the agents didn’t report the shooting to supervisors who arrived on scene and knowingly lied about the incident.

“Ramos did not mention the shooting, and said nothing about the suspect having a weapon,” Sutton said in an Aug. 11 press release.

Sutton was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

Both agents, however, told the Daily Bulletin the other agents and supervisors on the scene that day knew about the shooting, an assertion echoed in a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General memorandum written March 12, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Office of Inspector General.

“Investigation disclosed that the following Border Patrol agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez, Arturo Vasquez, Jose Mendoza, David Jaquez, Lance Medrano, Lorenzo Yrigoyen, Rene Mendez, Robert Arnold, and Jonathan Richards,” Sanchez wrote.

Arnold and Richards were the two supervisors on the scene that day.

Richards was given a promotion shortly after the incident and testified against the agents. Agents Vasquez, Juarez and Jaquez were given immunity from prosecution to testify against Ramos and Compean.

The prosecution’s objection to Ramos’ motion to reduce his sentence, which was released Monday, goes against what was reported by the Office of Inspector General and contends the two former agents covered up the shooting on their own.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, who prosecuted the agents and wrote the motion, some of the least credible evidence was when Ramos and Compean walked away from the scene.

“Instead of fulfilling (Ramos’) duties as an agent and as a member of the response team, he walked side by side with Compean, who according to Compean’s own testimony, bent down at least nine times to pick up his own spent casings.”

Kanof also states in her response that Ramos never mentioned until the trial that he thought his life or Compean’s was in danger, or that they thought the smuggler had a gun.

Ramos chose not to speak to investigators until his attorney was present, he told the Daily Bulletin. Compean, however, did wave his right to counsel and discussed the incident with investigators from the Office of Inspector General.

Contrary to Kanof’s statement, several memorandums written by Sanchez, the investigating officer, attest that Compean believed his life was in danger.

“Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila’s left hand … Compean explained that he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot him because he kept looking back at him as he ran away.”